What exacly has Obama done that he hasn't promised?

[Retlaw83]

They still worship their constitution (created several hundred years ago lol)

I'm impressed that our Constitution is older than the country.

they tend to not think that there's anything bad in it and just blame the other parties for attempting to ruin it

You either got bad information from the media, or you came up with this retarded conclusion yourself. You can't ruin the Constitution, but you can disregard the laws in it - which is what both parties do in their lust for power.

[Megatron]

most european countries dont have a constitution but are going along fine howd u like them apples shot off william tells bell end huh.

[Retlaw83]

most european countries dont have a constitution but are going along fine howd u like them apples shot off william tells bell end huh.

I'm okay with it, it's just most of our laws get their authority from the Constitution.

[Username]

Constitutions are great as long as they serve the people and impede the influence of special interest groups. I'm sure one of your great presidents said something like that the constitution isn't much worth if it can't be ammended.


But I like your constitution. It's pretty.

[Cimmerian Nights]

Mismatch, have you found a computer yet so that you can explain why buying 100 cars and having them in your home because you're a rich cat and CAN do it isn't a net-waste to the economy?

OK, much like magical trees that feed everyone fruit and schoolhouses that teach children for free simply through their presence, I'm getting the sense that your knowledge of car ownership is pretty shallow too.

You don't just pay for a car and be done with it, let alone 100 cars.

Before the keys even touch your hand think of all the other people you have to pay, and all the people that this transaction touches, and the money passing through everyone's hands, and the economic impact it does for everyone it touches and the economy at large. The labor, the materials, everything in total.
-Sales Tax
-Registration Fees
-Title Fees
-insurance
-credit checks
-Loan fees
-finance/lease charges
-loan insurance
-life & disability insurance
-extended warranty
-VIN etching
-parts and accessories
-detail work.
-doc fees
-conveyance charge
-misc. DMV fees
-this doesn't really account for the manufacturer or dealer at all where most of the money goes for building and bringing the car to you.

That's before you even drive it off the lot. Then, a car is not some investment that appreciates in value, it depreciates. And it has to be maintained.

-annual DMV and registration fees
-annual property taxes
-monthly insurance premiums (comprehensive, collision, glass, tire, maint. - all separate items)
-maintenance - How much is 100 oil and filter changes? You telling me the local garage wouldn't take that business? To say nothing of the various parts, filters, hoses, gaskets, tires, etc. that the manufacturer recommends replacing at normal intervals. All the aftermarket shops, all that shit.

Everybody - from the manufacturer, advertiser, transporter, dealer, salesman, mechanic, DMV, local gov't, insurer, bank etc. etc. is in on it.

Now multiply all this shit x100.

Then, if you're buying 100 vehicles to sit on, a la Jay Leno, you need to build a facility, hire architects and contractors, get state inspectors to come in, mechanical engineers, electricians, plumbers, roofers, drywallers, telcom guys. Maintanence, mechanics. It's fucking mind-boggling.

In totality, that's a lot of people, doing a lot of work, using a lot of materials to build and provide a whole shitload of goods and services with all kinds of implications on the economy.

http://www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/th ... tries.html

These are quaint, I just picture some family in Hawaii who's just read this and fed up with public transportation situation.
"That's it, pack your shit honey, we're moving to Finland."

I'd rather have a lower life expectancy and live in West Palm Beach than 10 extra years of living in Sweden.


Is that what you guys cling to in the winter months when you are contemplating suicide?

[SenisterDenister]

Stalagmite, since your friends are hipsters I am now assuming you're one after that last post on page four, so every post you make from now on here at DAC will be completely disregarded by me.

[Kashluk]

I think Cimmerian Nights must've misunderstood Username a little. "[A] net-waste to the economy" - in which we also take into account externality effects (spillover) and the end products' usage. Producing an expensive product that spends our precious, finite resources, pollutes the enviroment while being produced and ends up in some storage never to be used, actually does produce a net-waste. Those same resources, that same effort (work and engineermanship) could've been used to do other things, but it was directed into this '100 cars sitting in a garage' -project just because some douche had the money and the will to throw it away.

I still think it's in the 'rich cat's' every damn right to do so. Nothing should stop him. BUT it still isn't the smartest thing to do, since the potentia that has been created in form of 100 vehicles is left unused. It's like baking 100 cakes and then burying them underground. The wasting part disappears when the end products are used, preferably for something constructive like commuting or feeding the hungry, not driving around in circles or feeding the obese. But any use will do. If leaving the cars unused wouldn't be producing a net-waste, then government should like, totally, order megazillion vehicles from automobile industry and just torch the ready end products. It'll boost the economy and make us all richer!

http://www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/th ... tries.html

These are quaint, I just picture some family in Hawaii who's just read this and fed up with public transportation situation.
"That's it, pack your shit honey, we're moving to Finland."

I'd rather have a lower life expectancy and live in West Palm Beach than 10 extra years of living in Sweden.


Is that what you guys cling to in the winter months when you are contemplating suicide?

Well, throwing in the Newsweek link was nothing more than a joke, originally. But personally, I would rather live in any of the Nordic Countries than move to West Palm Beach under any circumstances. Each to his own, I guess. I like winter season.

[Mismatch]

So this is the post I promised Username. Before I actually start I'd like to point out (since it does seem to be sensitive) that what I write is from a european perspective as I am not an American. But I do like to pretend that I have basic knowledge about the world.

Also, I am no economist mr username, but I like to think that I know the basics. Which is what we are going to discuss. Yeah, and I do simplify things a bit, because I'm not writing some serious chit.... I'm posting in a forum.

Do note. This is a big post and I can't be arsed to read through it all. May be typos or even errors.

1. E-cum-onme
Lets start with the economy part shall we Username?
To examin whether Obama has handled or mis-handled the economy during the recession, let's go back to the beginning.
The seed of the recession was planted, not by Bush or capitalism as many would say, during the Clinton years when the government decided that everyone should own a home. This splendind idead was realized by forcing banks to lend people money even though their ability to repay the loans was in question.
The banks, now being forced to do things they didn't want to, soon realized that these loans were not a secure source of income. The banks needed to limit the hazard and their possible losses (after all, their purpose is to make a profit) and did so by bundling these loans with other less insecure loans and selling them off.
With more people getting loans and buying houses realestate prices rose. Suddenly people even started investing in houses to sell them later with a profit (by taking loans to finance the deal?). This, and other factors, helped creating a housing bubble. Some people pointed out that things were heading the wrong direction.... but they were disregarded.

When the bubble began bursting people realized that they had no incentatives to actually pay back their loans since their homes were now worth less than what they owed their bank. So they didn't, and lost their home. Suddenly the banks (including those who bought bundled loans) didn't get their moneys back. Insted they got realestate with no buyers.
They lost money
Investors lost money
Foreign investors lost money
Citizens lost money
Suddenly a recession started and demand went down. With demand down companies didn't need to produce as much so people lost their jobs. With much of the american (and european) economic model relying on people lending money to buy things (That IS what you do with a CC) rather than found their consumption with real savings things really went downhill.
We faced a keynesian collapse of epic proportions. With many countries running a keynesian scheme, they actually wanted citizens to take loans in order to consume, beacause consumption drives the economy... right? Well... wrong I dare say. Consumption with no real savings, no real production, drives a bubble economy.
So now all of these people were suddenly broke AND indebted. This would slow the recovery of the economy.

Now boom and bust isn't unheard of. During an economic boom malinvestments are bound to be made, and as these are revealed a bust (of different size depending on the size of the malinvestment) occurs. This 'repairs' the economy. Companies with good policies which make money survive and the bad ones die.
This forces the country/people/companies to focus at what they are good at, what actually makes a profit.
Creative destruction they call it.

So what happend next?
Jörg bush, mighty pirate, came swooping in with... Tadaaaa, a stimulus package!
What these packages do, really, is artificially helping compåanes that should have gone down. Now they can stay in business, and keep loosing moneys. Great.
Now, a stimulus package doesn't HAVE to be a bad idea (imo) provided that your country actually has the money to do it. In this case the US of A did not. Bush financed his package by loans, and printing money.
So now we have the government doing what was a bad idea for individuals. Taking loans to consume.

So we have a crisis caused by government intervention (at least made worse, there's no saying that no crisis would have occured without clinton, but he sure as hell made it worse).
And the government responds by more government intervention in the market. And yeah, they actually keep things afloat for awhile longer. But at what cost?

Enter Obama.
A time for change? Yes we can... but you didn't, did you?
Obamas economic policies for crisis handling are more or less the same as the ones Bush had. But MORE, and BIGGER... more EXTREEEME! Does this make Obama the Todd howard of politics? Obamas stimulus packages are bigger, and there are more of them. And guess what... they're still funded by loans. And by stealing from american citizens.
How you say? By printing money.
We have the FED, they're printing money. This makes the dollar worth less (surprise!), which means than the average amwerican actually has less money. With the printed money the FED buys bonds. Which means that they print money, and lend it to themselves. Then they hand it out as stimulus.
With a weakening dollar this actually means that when they get them money back for the bonds they will get less (worth less) than what they actually bought them for. This is what we call a bad investment.
On top of that, everyone else flees from the bonds because they can spot a bad investment.

So Obama is doing the exact same thing that Bush did.... only worse and more.
<i>He thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghosts</i>

Now that was the economic part. People wanted a new more responsible monetary policy, but got more of the same bad one. See what people don't like?

2. Grasp of reality.
Let's go to this part. Why are people not very happy with mr. Obama. Still I write this from a European perspective, so I might be wrong, but this sums of what I've understood from the current situation.

As the newly freed people of USA threw of the shackles of their European overlords they wrote the constitution. The sole purpose of this document was to ensure that USA would never again become what it had been. The purpose of this document was to ensure freedom.
One part of how to do this was to limit the size of the federal government because, as firsthand witnesses of this, the founding fathers knew that the government (regardless whether it's a monarchy or not) is in fact the biggest threat there is to the citizens of a country.
Many of the things Obama is doing, like the healthcare program are bloating the federal state, and steals power away from the states. The healthcare program is one part of this, but I'm sure there are others (perhaps you americans could enlighten us).

Now people are getting the impression that Obama is undermining the constutution when he is transferring power from the local to the centralized big government. Probably because that is what he's doing. With this people feel that their liberty is under attack.
And I agree. The last things you people should aim for is to become like Europe. The president of the EU is not even elected by the people (AND on top of that he's Belgian), and many european countries (I know mine is) are becoming more like Democraships (Democracies & Dictatorships) where people feel that anything goes as long as you vote for it... But it doesn't it's still WRONG, you can't vote about human rights. But we do, and they go away. What is great with the US constitution is the power it holds. Our european counterparts are not worth the paper they're written on. They are for show only and I envy you.

As for the rest of the whole healthcare thingy, I won't get into that right now. Much of what I have to say has been covered already, and frankly... this post is growing too long.
But I do hope that this explains why some people are not happy with Obama. But as I said, I may be wrong.

3. Morals - Taxes
This part is related to the previous one. Taxes is what enables a government to grow big. And at the heart of taxes we have a problem. The government force you to pay them. I think we all can agree that some sort of taxation is needed to enable us having a government.
And we need that (currently). A government doesn't need to be a bad thing. The state has one responsibility, and one responsibility only. To ensure the the rights of its people. That's it. That and nothing more.
What a person produces is his property. If you build something it's yours, and noone has the right to take it from you by force. Now in todays society, actual production has been repolaced with the monetary system.
When you produce something you get money for the value you produce.
And noone has the right to take that away from you against your will. So, with taxing being morally questionable from the start it should be kept to a minimum. This will also ensure a small government. However when we start taxing people differently depending on income we are even worse off. By what right? We do NOT, and will NEVER have the right to vote on whether we should steal certain peoples money. And yet that is what we do. Rich people should pay more (they already do, and I find the % of income system despicable). What's now stopping us from forcing black people to pay more. Or men, or women. Or how about we have a vote on killing all rich people. Or killing all poor people.
See what I'm getting at?


That was about it I suppose.
:aieee:

[Cimmerian Nights]

I think Cimmerian Nights must've misunderstood Username a little. "[A] net-waste to the economy" - in which we also take into account externality effects (spillover) and the end products' usage. Producing an expensive product that spends our precious, finite resources, pollutes the enviroment while being produced and ends up in some storage never to be used, actually does produce a net-waste. Those same resources, that same effort (work and engineermanship) could've been used to do other things, but it was directed into this '100 cars sitting in a garage' -project just because some douche had the money and the will to throw it away.

If it gives that db any level of utility (even just collecting dust in a warehouse) then who's to say it's a waste and force him to do otherwise?
I'm really not cool with the government deciding that what people do with their private property is or isn't utilitarian enough for them.
What's the next step then?
Eminent Domain? Your house would better serve the community if we knocked it down and put up an Applebee's.
Collectivization? Forced Collectivization?

You can't legislate people spending their money in the most socio-economically responsible manner. Some people are selfish pricks, that's human nature.
Mandating and legislating otherwise will never change that.

It's like baking 100 cakes and then burying them underground. The wasting part disappears when the end products are used, preferably for something constructive like commuting or feeding the hungry, not driving around in circles or feeding the obese.

It's not like that at all, cakes are perishable goods, cars are durable goods. Cakes are made to be eaten. Cars aren't all made to serve the same purpose. Some are just a pretense for getting rich old guys with penis envy to blow their money.

Should the state seize Ferrari since they only make frivolous toys for rich boys? I mean, wouldn't it be more responsible for the state to liquidate Ferrari and turn it into a factory that produces sensible footwear for the economically disadvantaged? Would that warm your heart enough?

We (US/Scandanvain) have vastly different opinions on the role and extent that government should intrude on people's lives.

But any use will do. If leaving the cars unused wouldn't be producing a net-waste, then government should like, totally, order megazillion vehicles from automobile industry and just torch the ready end products. It'll boost the economy and make us all richer!

We don't all have the disposable income for that, so I wouldn't advise it.
The rich guy has the money, the government is like $13Tril in the hole,
The government can't even balance a budget, they're not getting a good interest rate from Chrysler Financial with their credit score.

Like I said, cars depreciate, they are a really poor investment. Only a rich asshole would buy 100 and not use them.

I like winter season.

Me too, but I like seeing miniskirts even more.

[Retlaw83]

Mismatch, you're right on the money. You articulated what my anger prevented me from saying.

I think Cimmerian Nights must've misunderstood Username a little. "[A] net-waste to the economy" - in which we also take into account externality effects (spillover) and the end products' usage. Producing an expensive product that spends our precious, finite resources, pollutes the enviroment while being produced and ends up in some storage never to be used, actually does produce a net-waste.

Kash, while I admire your well-thought out and clinical analysis, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, Username is too fucking stupid to have considered this.

[Username]

Mismatch, you're right on the money. You articulated what my anger prevented me from saying.

I think Cimmerian Nights must've misunderstood Username a little. "[A] net-waste to the economy" - in which we also take into account externality effects (spillover) and the end products' usage. Producing an expensive product that spends our precious, finite resources, pollutes the enviroment while being produced and ends up in some storage never to be used, actually does produce a net-waste.

Kash, while I admire your well-thought out and clinical analysis, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, Username is too fucking stupid to have considered this.

Actually it was exacly what I wrote and what I meant but I tried to explain it in an as simple manner as possible so that even you could get it. But I guess its hard to get anything with that stick up your arse going so far that it's starting to poke your brain a bit to hard. I even end up explaining the waste of resources (really pollution here is the big issue, the idea that we have finitive - as opposed to infinitive - resources is in the longterm incorrect) in addition to the net-waste in itself by putting it in storage. Two things that in modern economic theories based on market fundamentalism aren't really accounted for. For example this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

Now fuck off and stay out of adult play Retlaw.


I'll come back to the more sensible replies later.

[Retlaw83]

Wow, Username sure is upset that he can't express his thoughts in English properly.

Swedes are terrible people.

[Username]

Well Kashluk and the rest got it since they are discussing it. I guess you're the one that is upset deep down inside because all the insecurity and anger is clouding your already poor judgement.


edit: Go and play with Cakestar now...

[Jeff]

you have 420 posts maybe we should take a hit from the bong bro, my politics are peaceful if you know what i mean, one love

as a sidenote, as someone not following politics it's interesting to read how the economic policies of american presidents don't apparently differ that much from those of african leaders :zimbabwe2000:

[Retlaw83]

Well Kashluk and the rest got it since they are discussing it.

Yes. In complete thoughts that make sense and don't sound whiny and emo because reality doesn't mesh with their limited world view. You should take some lessons in discourse from everyone but you has contributed to this thread.

[Cimmerian Nights]

(really pollution here is the big issue, the idea that we have finitive - as opposed to infinitive - resources is in the longterm incorrect)

So your model takes into account only production not operation? I'm pretty sure 100 cars in a garage cause less pollution and consume fewer finite natural resources through operation than 100 cars on the road do.

420

good call.

[Kashluk]

If it gives that db any level of utility (even just collecting dust in a warehouse) then who's to say it's a waste and force him to do otherwise?

I feel that you understood what I meant, but you decided to ignore the core of my post in your reply:

" it's in the 'rich cat's' every damn right to do so. Nothing should stop him. BUT it still isn't the smartest thing to do "

My whole point was that no one should be forcing you how to use your money. But acknowledging that such behavior is not always the most efficient choice (as opposed to some free market fundamentalists' ideas) will get us one step closer to understanding macro-level economy. Pareto-efficiency and all that.

We (US/Scandanvain) have vastly different opinions on the role and extent that government should intrude on people's lives.

True. And the biggest reason being, I'm polarizing things quite a bit here so bear with me, that the US point of view is that 'The Government' is this separate entity, which threatens the everyday life of an average citizen, where as we (well, Finns don't really belong to Scandinavia, but whatever) believe that government is composed of its people and is there to serve its people. You see it as a threat, we see it as a tool - for surviving the harsh conditions and other disadvantages.

And when it comes to 'intruding on people's lives' I'd say that there's a BIG difference between value liberalism and economic liberalism. Just because companies are free to pollute as much as they want and throw their employees around any way they feel, does not mean that there would be any actual political or social freedom. Although Scandinavian/Fennoscandian nations have much higher taxes and private enterprises are under heavier regulation than in US, the citizens still enjoy a lot more freedoms of action and thought.

IMHO: intruding on the economy is a lot smaller deal than infringing personal rights, ie. Homeland Security and the lots.

[Mismatch]

In Sweden we are actually losing much of our freedoms. Massive surveillance, laws suppressing free speech. There was even some guy working in the migration office who got fired because he supported Israels right to exist.

Also the eu is slowly taking our liberty away kash. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

[Superhaze]

Americans do (in general) view any organization as "them" not us, including unions and government. This seems strange to me as I have always seen the government as something I'm responsible for. I voted and I want something in return for my taxes.

It should however be noted that the american system does not rely as much on debate and working your way up the hierarchy of the party until you reach the top as the uk/scandinavian system does. Its much more of a popularity/marketing campaign than a straight forward political campaign. This does probably put some people off and contributes to the "us vs them" viewpoint. If any of that makes sense.

[Wolfman Walt]

Superhaze- Not to interject anywhere, as this is obviousily a conversation of the utmost importance that will change humanity, but I honestly think that America's view on organizations may have a bit to do with how America was founded. We technically came into being by rebelling against the biggest organization around in those times, so American culture kinda grinds that into us.

Alternatively - America actually had a lot more....I suppose "belief" in their government until right around the 60's when the anti-government/anti-vietnam/anti-authority movements really started occuring. I always felt that the Kennedy assassination really marked where citizen belief in their government started taking a downturn. But I suppose that's my personal opinion. It's always kinda hard to take a REAL context of political feeling without actually living in the time. Occasionally I've read newspaper clippings from the 1800's and it was like reading something from Planet X as if you didn't understand particular things, you wouldn't understand it.

Also - I won't say that it's all of America. The problem nowadays is that parties have seemingly been seperated into "liberal" and "conservative" without people remembering what the parties really represent. Democrats, traditionally, believe in larger central government power whereas Republicans believe more in smaller central government and more in State rights. Libertarians, on the other hand, are the far example of what you're talking about. That's why it's kinda odd nowadays when you have a canidate who is A. a democrat and B. conservative like Joseph Liberman. He's conservative in his social and most of his political views, but believes in stronger central government to control those rather then handing things down to the State level.

Edit: Oh shit. I posted in a political thread. I'm fucked.